You are on page 1of 2


2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 137 E/219

Or will the Commission be bringing forward some other proposals for legislation which would provide a
similar cooling-off period and other protection from misleading selling tactics for small businesses?

I have been contacted by small businesses in my constituency who have fallen victim to cross-border
misleading selling tactics and are now faced with large demands for payments for services they did not
realise they were ordering. They would like to see legislation introduced that will protect them from such
unfair practices.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2003)

The Commission is not currently planning to propose amendments to Directive 98/27/EC on injunctions
for the protection of consumers’ interests (1) to cover business-to-business (B2B) transactions.
The Injunctions Directive establishes a common procedure to allow a qualified body (such as a consumer
association or public enforcement authority) from one Member State to seek an injunction in another.
It aims to control traders that undertake activities in one Member State which harm the collective interests
of consumers in another Member State. An injunction may be sought for infringements of national
provisions transposing the Union consumer Directives. For example, infringements concerning Directives
on misleading advertisements, consumer credit, package travel, unfair contract terms, distance selling
contracts, sale of consumer goods and guarantees. However, the Commission is required in its first report
on the application of the Directive due in July 2003 to examine, in particular, its scope ‘in relation to the
protection of the collective interests of persons exercising a commercial, industrial, craft or professional

There are no plans to introduce a right of withdrawal from contractual obligations in B2B relationships
such as those contained within the consumer protection directives.

The Commission is aware of problems experienced by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that
have fallen victim to cross-border misleading selling practices. It should however be underlined that
Directive 84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC (2) on misleading and comparative advertisement
already provides for a certain standard of protection against misleading representations which covers
relations between businesses.

(1) OJ L 166, 11.6.1998.

(2) Council Directive 84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 relating to the approximation of the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of the Member States concerning misleading advertising, OJ L 250, 19.9.1984.

(2003/C 137 E/248) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3517/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 December 2002)

Subject: Common Fisheries Policy

The Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) claims that:

 EU fisheries funding in 2000-2006 is set to reach almost twice the amount for 1994-1999 despite
concerns about depletion of fish stocks;

 during the period 2000-2006, EUR 1,06 billion are to be spent on reducing fishing efforts, while
EUR 1,18 billion are to be spent on subsidies which will not prevent depletion of fish stocks, such as
modernising or building new boats.
C 137 E/220 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.2003

Are these claims correct?

Will the Commission detail how much money was given to each Member State in CFP subsidies in 2001,
and what is its estimate of the proportion of this money which in each case was devoted to purposes
intended to promote the conservation of fish stocks or fishing in an entirely sustainable manner?

What proportion of the CFP budget does the Commission intend should be devoted in 2003 to measures
to conserve fish stocks or to promote fishing in an entirely sustainable manner?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

During the 1994-1999 period about EUR 1,3 billion, or an average of EUR 217 million per year, of
Community aid was programmed for fleet measures, i.e. measures for reducing the capacity and measures
for the renewal of the fleet. The amount programmed for the 2000-2006 period amounts to
EUR 1,5 billion of Community aid, or an average of EUR 215 million per year. The average level of aid
per year has thus remained the same.

Out of the EUR 1,5 billion programmed for the 2000-2006 period for fleet measures, 45 % are reserved
for measures aiming at reducing the capacity, whereas 55 % have been reserved for fleet renewal measures.

It should, however, be noted that the aid given to fleet reduction measures leads to a net reduction of fleet
capacity since the vessels withdrawn cannot be replaced. Similarly, the aid given to fleet renewal cannot
lead to an increase in fishing capacity, since the new capacity must be matched by withdrawals from the
fleet of at least the same capacity and without using public aid.

Until now the amounts paid to Member States are very limited, some EUR 87 million for reducing the
capacity and some EUR 51 million for the renewal of the fleet. The details are shown below:

(EUR million)
Country Reduction of capacity Renewal of the fleet

Denmark 2,53 2,64

Germany 0,02 0,38
Spain 17,76 41,56
France 5,54 1,41
Italy 48,57 0
Portugal 6,06 4,42
Finland 0 0,10
Sweden 2,40 0,21
United Kingdom 4,50 0,05

In the Commission’s reform proposals, aid for the renewal of the fleet will be limited to modernisation
projects without capacity implications. As from 2003, the part of the aid programmed for fleet renewal,
which has not yet been decided by the Member States, can and should, to a certain extent, be used for
increasing the amounts already available for reducing the excess capacity.